Z. A. CHANNA , J.-This acquittal appeal by the Provincial Government under section 417, Cr. P. C. Is directed against a judgment of a learned Additional City Magistrate, Karachi, whereby he acquitted the respondent of an offence under section 304-A, P. P. C. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 22-6-1971, at about 6-30 p.m., a child, by name, Zahid A.I, aged about 3 years, was bit by Bus No. KAU-9781, on the road near the Lasbella Bridge, Karachi, in consequence whereof the child's thigh, pelvis and spine were fractured and on account of these injuries he died while being put in a taxi for being taken to the hospital. A report of the incident was made by Mahmood Hussain, an Assistant Supervisor in the K. M. C., at 18-40 hours, at the Golimar Police Station, which was recorded in the Station Diary. The case was investigated by S. 1. P. Syed A.I Hassan Rizvi, who 'inspected the scene of offence and prepared mashirnama and sketch of the same. He also found the bus involved in the incident standing near the place of the accident. The S. 1. P. Recorded the statements of P. Ws. Usman, Sharif Jan, Shahid Jan and Muhammad Hussain. The S. I. P. Also seized the bus and got it inspected from the Motor Vehicle Inspector. On the following day, namely, 23-6- 1971, the S.1. P. Arrested the appellant who was the driver of the bus involved in the incident, and on completion of his investigations he challaned the appellant.
2. The learned Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the grounds that no criminal negligence or culpable rashness had been established on the part of the appellant and that the accident was due to the fact that the child was attempting to cross a busy road unescorted and was unfortunately hit by the bus on the road in spite of the efforts of the driver to stop the bus. The learned Magistrate found that there was no evidence that the bus was speeding or it was going on the wrong side of the road.
3. We have heard Mr. Hyder .Rata Naqvi, who appears for the State, and Mr. S. Azizul Hassan, the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the State, on our pointing out to him the evidence of the 4 alleged eye-witnesses to the incident, frankly conceded that he was unable to support the appeal and that there was no criminal negligence or culpable rashness established on the part-of the appellant.
4. The main evidence against the appellant is of 4 alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Abdul Alim, Salimuddin, Shakil Ahmed and Mahmood Hussain. So far as P. W. Abdul Alim is concerned, he admittedly did not see the actual occurrence. In his Police statement, with which he was confronted, he has stated that on receipt of information that his nephew was injured in an accident, he reached the place of accident.
5. As regards P. W. Salimuddin, no doubt, he has stated that he had seen two buses, including the bus involved in the accident, overtaking each other and had also witnessed the incident, but we are not inclined to rely on his . Evidence. In the first place, he is a relation of the deceased, who was his nephew. Secondly, he is a chance witness, who admittedly resides about a furlong from the place of the accident. Finally, though according to the witness, the bus driven by the appellant had struck the margin of the border of the green island, near which the accident occurred, and had damaged a portion of the footpath, no such damage is mentioned in the mashirnama of the scene of offence or by the Investigating Officer and the mashir of the wardat.
6. The third witness, Shakil Ahmed, has also spoken about the two buses racing and attempting to overtake each other. We are not satisfied that he had witnessed the accident or that his evidence is based on truth. He is admittedly an employee of P. W. Abdul Alim, the uncle of the deceased.
Furthermore, the witness has admitted that he did not leave his shop, which even according to him, is 35 paces away from the place of accident. If P. W. Abdul Alim who was working in the same shop, could not see the accident from the shop, it is unlikely that this witness could have witnessed the accident from that shop. It appears to us that he has given the evidence in the case under the influence of his employer, Abdul Alim.
7. The only independent witness examined in the case is P. W. Mahmood Hussain. No doubt, in his evidence before the trial Court, he had stated that he saw two buses, including the bus involved in the accident, coming fast and speeding from Lasbella Bridge and overtaking each other, but no such assertions were made by him in the report which he had lodged at the Police Station, shortly after the accident. In that report, all that he has stated is that Bus No. KAU-9781 hit a child aged 9 to 10 years near Golimar Bus-stop No. 2, due to which he was injured and fell down and had received severe injuries. Furthermore, if the bus driven by the appellant had been driven at a fast or excessive speed, it would have run over the child and most probably dragged him for some distance. However, all witnesses have admitted that the bus stopped at the place of the accident itself and only the wheel of the bus went over the leg of the deceased child. This clearly shows that the bus was being driven at the reasonable speed and was brought to a halt im--mediately.
8. The appellant, in his defence, had examined 2 witnesses, namely, Atta Muhammad and Ghulam Hussain, who have stated that the deceased suddenly jumped on the road when the bus was coming and in consequence was struck by the bus. Even if we were not to place any reliance on the testimony of these 2 defence witnesses, we are of the opinion that it was the height of negligence on the part of the parents of the deceased to allow such a small child to cross an extremely busy road all by himself. The death of the ,q deceased is to be greatly regretted but was mainly on account of the want of care of the guardians of the child. Such unfortunate accidents are bound to occur where unattended children attempt to cross busy roads. There is no evidence that before the accident the appellant saw the child crossing theroad and had the time or opportunity to stop his bus before striking the child.
For the reasons stated by us above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.